Methodological comparison among radial, non-radial and intermediate approaches for DEA environmental assessment

This study compares three DEA approaches for environmental assessment, all of which are designed to examine the level of simultaneous achievement on economic prosperity and environmental protection, so measuring the degree of sustainability development. DEA, standing for Data Envelopment Analysis, has been widely applied for performance assessment in the past five decades. A new type of applications is referred to as “DEA environmental assessment” and it measures the performance of many organizations that utilize inputs to produce not only desirable outputs (e.g., electricity) but also undesirable outputs (e.g., CO2). In the previous studies, DEA-based performance evaluation for environment assessment is methodologically classified into radial or non-radial category. Recently, a new “intermediate” approach, analytically locating between the radial and non-radial measures, has been proposed as the third alternative. A use of the intermediate approach has several unique features, all of which cannot be found in the radial and non-radial ones. The new approach measures the degree of unified inefficiency on each production factor and determines the level of total unified inefficiency from the average of the sum of these inefficiency scores. This study discusses the analytical features by comparing the intermediate approach with the radial and non-radial ones. The methodological comparison attempts to convey a message that DEA is indeed an important methodology, but not perfect. Rather, it is an approximation approach to examine the performance of various organizations. Many DEA applications on energy and environment often suffer from a methodological bias, implying that different approaches produce different empirical results. Thus, in guiding a large policy issue such as the global warming and climate change, it is necessary for us to compare several different approaches (e.g., models and concepts) to derive a reliable empirical suggestion. The importance of such a message is applicable to not only DEA but also the other types of empirical research in natural and social sciences. Therefore, this study discusses the methodological bias issue from the practicality of the three DEA approaches in assessing various concerns on energy and environment.

[1]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Weak and strong disposability vs. natural and managerial disposability in DEA environmental assessment: Comparison between Japanese electric power industry and manufacturing industries , 2012 .

[2]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA environmental assessment in time horizon: Radial approach for Malmquist index measurement on petroleum companies , 2015 .

[3]  Yanrui Wu,et al.  Energy trade efficiency and its determinants: A Malmquist index approach , 2015 .

[4]  T. Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment and planning: Desirable procedures to evaluate fossil fuel power plants , 2012 .

[5]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA environmental assessment in a time horizon: Malmquist index on fuel mix, electricity and CO2 of industrial nations , 2013 .

[6]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Undesirable congestion under natural disposability and desirable congestion under managerial disposability in U.S. electric power industry measured by DEA environmental assessment , 2016 .

[7]  T. Sueyoshi,et al.  A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment , 2017 .

[8]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Assessment of large commercial rooftop photovoltaic system installations: Evidence from California , 2017 .

[9]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Sustainability development for supply chain management in U.S. petroleum industry by DEA environmental assessment , 2014 .

[10]  Constantin Zopounidis,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of energy-intensive industries across European countries , 2016 .

[11]  M. Porter,et al.  Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship , 1995 .

[12]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  China's regional sustainability and diversified resource allocation: DEA environmental assessment on economic development and air pollution , 2015 .

[13]  Reza Farzipoor Saen,et al.  Measuring eco-efficiency based on green indicators and potentials in energy saving and undesirable output abatement , 2015 .

[14]  Antonio Estache,et al.  How efficient are African Electricity Companies? Evidence from the Southern African Countries , 2008 .

[15]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Performance analysis of US coal-fired power plants by measuring three DEA efficiencies , 2010 .

[16]  Fred W. Glover,et al.  Contributions of Professor William W. Cooper in Operations Research and Management Science , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[17]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA Environmental Assessment on U.S. Industrial Sectors , 2014 .

[18]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA radial measurement for environmental assessment: A comparative study between Japanese chemical and pharmaceutical firms , 2014 .

[19]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Comparison among U.S. industrial sectors by DEA environmental assessment: Equipped with analytical capability to handle zero or negative in production factors , 2015 .

[20]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Environmental assessment on coal-fired power plants in U.S. north-east region by DEA non-radial measurement , 2015 .

[21]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA environmental assessment: Measurement of damages to scale with unified efficiency under managerial disposability or environmental efficiency , 2013 .

[22]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by Data Envelopment Analysis: Corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation , 2014 .

[23]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Environmental assessment by DEA radial measurement: U.S. coal-fired power plants in ISO (Independent System Operator) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organization) , 2012 .

[24]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to Scale, Damages to Scale, Marginal Rate of Transformation and Rate of Substitution in DEA Environmental Assessment , 2012 .

[25]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Measuring scale efficiency and returns to scale on large commercial rooftop photovoltaic systems in California , 2017 .

[26]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Core business concentration vs. corporate diversification in the US electric utility industry: Synergy and deregulation effects , 2009 .

[27]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Japanese fuel mix strategy after disaster of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant: Lessons from international comparison among industrial nations measured by DEA environmental assessment in time horizon , 2015 .

[28]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to scale and damages to scale on U.S. fossil fuel power plants: Radial and non-radial approaches for DEA environmental assessment , 2012 .

[29]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Data envelopment analysis for environmental assessment: Comparison between public and private ownership in petroleum industry , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[30]  William W. Cooper,et al.  Evaluating Water Supply Services in Japan with RAM: a Range-adjusted Measure of Inefficiency , 1998 .

[31]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA radial and non-radial models for unified efficiency under natural and managerial disposability: Theoretical extension by strong complementary slackness conditions , 2012 .

[32]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Data Envelopment Analysis as a Data Mining Methodology for Environmental Assessment , 2013 .

[33]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Investment strategy for sustainable society by development of regional economies and prevention of industrial pollutions in Japanese manufacturing sectors , 2014 .

[34]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA environmental assessment of coal fired power plants: Methodological comparison between radial and non-radial models , 2012 .

[35]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Efficiency-based rank assessment for electric power industry: A combined use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and DEA-Discriminant Analysis (DA) , 2012 .

[36]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Measurement of Returns to Scale and Damages to Scale for DEA-based operational and environmental assessment: How to manage desirable (good) and undesirable (bad) outputs? , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Environmental Assessment on Energy and Sustainability by Data Envelopment Analysis , 2018 .

[38]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  A comparative study among fossil fuel power plants in PJM and California ISO by DEA environmental assessment , 2013 .

[39]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Should the US clean air act include CO2 emission control?: Examination by data envelopment analysis , 2010 .

[40]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA approach for unified efficiency measurement: Assessment of Japanese fossil fuel power generation , 2011 .

[41]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to scale and damages to scale under natural and managerial disposability: Strategy, efficiency and competitiveness of petroleum firms , 2012 .

[42]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to damage under undesirable congestion and damages to return under desirable congestion measured by DEA environmental assessment with multiplier restriction: Economic and energy planning for social sustainability in China , 2016 .

[43]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to scale vs. damages to scale in data envelopment analysis: An impact of U.S. clean air act on coal-fired power plants , 2013 .

[44]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Methodological comparison between two unified (operational and environmental) efficiency measurements for environmental assessment , 2011, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[45]  Yuji Ijiri,et al.  Accounting Essays by Professor William W. Cooper: Revisiting in Commemoration of His Ninety-Fifth Birthday , 2010 .

[46]  Savas Papadopoulos,et al.  Technical efficiency of economic systems of EU-15 countries based on energy consumption , 2013 .

[47]  T. Sueyoshi,et al.  Social sustainability measured by intermediate approach for DEA environmental assessment: Chinese regional planning for economic development and pollution prevention , 2017 .

[48]  Ching-Cheng Lu,et al.  The technology gap and efficiency measure in WEC countries: Application of the hybrid meta frontier model , 2012 .

[49]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Environmental assessment for corporate sustainability by resource utilization and technology innovation: DEA radial measurement on Japanese industrial sectors , 2014 .

[50]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Returns to Scale and Damages to Scale with Strong Complementary Slackness Conditions in DEA Assessment: Japanese Corporate Effort on Environment Protection , 2012 .

[51]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Marginal Rate of Transformation and Rate of Substitution measured by DEA environmental assessment: Comparison among European and North American nations , 2016 .

[52]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) assessment of operational and environmental efficiencies on Japanese regional industries , 2014 .

[53]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Measurement of returns to scale on large photovoltaic power stations in the United States and Germany , 2017 .

[54]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  DEA window analysis for environmental assessment in a dynamic time shift: Performance assessment of U.S. coal-fired power plants , 2013 .

[55]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  Photovoltaic power stations in Germany and the United States: A comparative study by data envelopment analysis , 2014 .

[56]  Konstantinos Kounetas,et al.  Heterogeneous technologies, strategic groups and environmental efficiency technology gaps for European countries , 2015 .